[B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Jan 6 16:07:50 EST 2011
On Jan 6, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:
> Hi, Carl,
>
> I did not assume that the presence or absence of the article with the infinitive
> made no difference. On the contrary, I assumed that it did, since the grammars
> seem to make a big deal out of stuff like this.
Sorry, Mark, I guess I was thrown for a loop by your phrasing, "hard-wired to
take it or leave it."
> But in reading actual Greek, I
> notice again and again that the generalizations from the grammars work when they
> work and often they just don't. Maybe this is what Funk is saying here
>
> <8310. There is no clear line of demarcation between the functions of the
> anarthrous infinitive and those of the articular infinitive, except that the
> anarthrous infinitive never occurs in p-clusters as the object of a preposition,
> and the articular infinitive does not occur in verb chains of Group I
> (§§567-573).>
>
> although he lost me a little on the last bit.
>
> But again, go back to Adrian's question. Check out 1 Thes 4:3-6 and tell me why
> the article is used with TO MH hUPERBAINEIN in verse 6 and not with APECESQAI
> in v. 3 or EIDENAI in v.4. I think it just did sound better that way. It's not
> flipping a coin, but some language is not as conscious as the analysis of it
> would assume. Again, it's not a matter of
>
> <of which formulations were suitable in particular constructions>
>
> because in these two epistles you find the article there or not there in the
> same constructions.
First, let's look at 1 Thess 4:3-6:
1Th. 4:3 Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας, 4 εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ, 5 μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν, 6 τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, διότι ἔκδικος κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα.
1Th. 4:3 TOUTO GAR ESTIN QELHMA TOU QEOU, hO hAGIASMOS hUMWN, APECESQAI hUMAS APO THS PORNEIAS, 4 EIDENAI hEKASTON hUMWN TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI EN hAGIASMWi KAI TIMHi, 5 MH EN PAQEI EPIQUMIAS KAQAPER KAI TA EQNH TA MH EIDOTA TON QEON, 6 TO MH hUPERBAINEIN KAI PLEONEKTEIN EN TWi PRAGMATI TON ADELFON AUTOU, DIOTI EKDIKOS KURIOS PERI PANTWN TOUTWN, KAQWS KAI PROEIPAMEN hUMIN KAI DIEMARTURAMEQA.
Here we have (1) APECESQAI hUMAS APO THS PORNEIAS -- standard usage of subject-accusative + infinitive, (2) APECESQAI hUMAS APO THS PORNEIAS -- another of the same construction, (3) EIDENAI hEKASTON hUMWN TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI EN hAGIASMWi KAI TIMHi ... (where KTASQAI functions as complementary to EIDENAI and certainly would not have an article) -- yet another of the same construction. I don't think that an article governing the whole construction of a subject-accusative, infinitive, and its adjuncts and complements is common in Biblical Koine. On the other hand, as you note, verse 6 has TO MH hUPERBAINEIN KAI PLEONEKTEIN EN TWi PRAGMATI TON ADELFON AUTOU. As I see it, this is a different construction from those three previous ones; it's not a clause but a substantive -- what we'd normally express in English, I think, with a gerund: "not cheating and/or taking advantage of one's brother." Granted that each of these constructions can be converted into a clause in English, "that you refrain from immorality, that each of you know how to get ... ", there's no subject expressed in the articular infinitive construction in verse 6 and I think it really is different in kind from the others.
And if we look at the texts originally cited by Adrian, the TO could not have been omitted in the three instances where the infinitive functions as the object of the preposition EIS; as for TO MH hUPERBAINEIN, I've just discussed that above.
>> I keep coming across a construction using TO + infinitive, and I am not
>> sure what difference the article makes to the meaning compared to using
>> the infinitive on its own. Some examples would be:
>>
>> TO MH hUPERBAINEIN.... (1Thess4:6)
>> ....EIS TO AGAPAN ALLHLOUS (1Thess4:9)
>> ENDEIGMA THS DIKAIAS KRISEWS TOU QEOU, EIS TO KATAXIWQHNAI....
>> (2Thess1:5)
>> EIS TO MH TACEWS SALEUQHNAI.... (2Thess2:2)
On the other hand, I think that an infinitive can be a subject of a nominal sentence with or without the article:
PANTES ANQRWPOI hAMARTANOUSIN
hAMARTANEIN ANQRWPEION ESTIN.
or ANQRWPEION ESTIN TO hAMARTANEIN (although I think the latter is somewhat more "natural.")
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
> ________________________________
> From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
> To: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Gene Cockerham <Gene.Cockerham at ncpres.org>; bgreek at global4.freeserve.co.uk;
> b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 11:56:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Mark Lightman wrote:
>
>> Gene and Carl did a good job of explaining the construction, but Adrian's
>> question was why, in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the infinitive, in the same
>> constructions, sometimes has the article and sometimes does not. I think that
>> was a very good question.
>>
>>
>> I reread these two letters yesterday and I noticed the same thing. Sometimes
>> the article is there with the infinitive in a given construction and sometimes
>
>> it is not. In general, and certainly in the citations that Adrian gave, I can
>
>> find no real difference in meaning. The article was less common in poetry, so
>>
>> I believe that the Greeks were hard-wired to take it or leave it and did so in
>>
>> the interest of variety and euphony as much as semantic nuance. Paul probably
>> did not even think about it, and so perhaps neither should we.
>
> I really don't quite know what it means to be "hard-wired to take it or leave
> it" --
> but this sounds to me like saying it's altogether arbitrary whether or not an
> ancient author should choose to use an article with an infinitive or not: did
> s/he
> flip a coin? did s/he ask, "does it sound better with or without an article?"?
> While I think I'd agree that Paul probably didn't even think about it, I would
> suppose that he didn't need to think about it because he had a ready command
> of which formulations were suitable in particular constructions.
>
> Rather than assume that it makes no difference whether or not an article is
> used with an infinitive, I think it would be wise to review what one of the
> better Koine grammars has to say about inifinitive usage. I would recommend:
>
> Funk's Beginning-Intermediate Hellenistic Greek Grammar (BIGHG):
> Lesson 57: The Verb/Infinitive
> THE INFINITIVE: RANGE OF FUNCTIONS
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/funk-grammar/pre-alpha/lesson-57.html
>
> I think too that beginning or intermediate grammars might do well to group
> together
> discussions of such items as, "How is purpose expressed in a subordinate
> construction?"
> Then one might compare and contrast the usages of (1) hINA + subjunctive,
> (2) hWSTE + infinitive, (3) EIS TO + infinitive, (4) TOU + infinitive, (5)
> future
> participle ... -- I don't know offhand whether that's exhaustive, but these are
> common
> modes, worth illustrating by exampels readily found throughout the GNT.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Gene Cockerham <Gene.Cockerham at ncpres.org>
>> To: bgreek at global4.freeserve.co.uk; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 8:26:24 AM
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive
>>
>> J Gresham Machen
>> Lesson XXII
>> Paragraphs 301-305
>> In general - the Greek infinitive is a verbal noun and so like any other
>> noun can take the article. With an article the infinitive can stand in
>> the place of most nouns. "Thus, KALON ESTI TO APOTHANEIN HUPER TWN
>> ADELFWN, means the act of dying in behalf of the brethren is good..."
>> Here TO APOTHANEIN is a noun in the nominative case, being the subject
>> of the verb ESTI."
>>
>> Sorry for the quoted section - I do not have the experience that many of
>> the contributors of this list serve - hopefully someone can expound on
>> this if necessary.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
>> [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of
>> bgreek at global4.freeserve.co.uk
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 8:16 AM
>> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Subject: [B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive
>>
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> I keep coming across a construction using TO + infinitive, and I am not
>> sure what difference the article makes to the meaning compared to using
>> the infinitive on its own. Some examples would be:
>>
>> TO MH hUPERBAINEIN.... (1Thess4:6)
>> ....EIS TO AGAPAN ALLHLOUS (1Thess4:9)
>> ENDEIGMA THS DIKAIAS KRISEWS TOU QEOU, EIS TO KATAXIWQHNAI....
>> (2Thess1:5)
>> EIS TO MH TACEWS SALEUQHNAI.... (2Thess2:2)
>>
>> Would somebody please be kind enough to explain to me what difference
>> the use of the article makes to the meaning?
>>
>> Many thanks
>> Adrian Clark
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list